ONPhD Candidacy Challenge on P2Pu
Peter Rawsthorne
Leigh Blackall
awesome Peter! I'll go through this challenge, starting next week.
The purple badge with speech bubbles and P2PU on it, is that the badge? Can we get ONPhD on it?
Bob McCrindle
This looks great and it looks like I will join Leigh in the process shortly.
Peter Rawsthorne
Once we have this ONPhD Challenge finished up I will solicit P2Pu to attach a ONPhD specific badge to the challenge.
This is where we get to design something special as a badge!
Be well my friends.
Peter
Thomas Steele-Maley
Peter Rawsthorne
Our immediate needs are;
1) review of the tasks... what should I add or change?
2) graphics / themes for the images used throughout the challenge. ( I like an openness of the outdoors theme)
3) design for the ONPhD badge...
4) Once we have the badge design I can set up everything else...
Be Well...
Joelle.Vandermensbrugghe
This looks good - simple and clear.
Just a few minor reflections:
In 2. Identify your domain of study, it may be useful to explain that the domain should provide a summary of what is already known in the field, so that it prepares for setting out what will be added to the field of knowledge. The two need to be clearly related.
Re methodology, would you not also ask them to present methdologies envisaged at this stage for the proposed research, rather than just generally demonstrate that have reserach skills.
The descriptives under methodology seem to refer more to 'generic' skills, such as critical thinking skills. Do they really belong under methoology? Or are these skills that will be further developped while doing the degree, together with other skills such as project management, communication.....
Joelle
Yves
On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:21:38 PM UTC-5, Peter Rawsthorne wrote:
Yves
Leigh Blackall
Hi Yves, my inquiries with Charles Darwin University were noted here in the email forum, but cut short by my leaving Darwin. It turned out that they, and apparently a few other universities in Australia, have a "PhD by pre publication" program. Essentially, a candidate can enrol and submit work that was done prior to enrolment. this might account for why a university like CDU punches above its weight for research outputs. The sticking point on this however is that you still needed to find a supervisor on the CDU staff. I couldn't, and they wouldn't accept a supervisor who wasn't CDU staff. To be honest, the lady I spoke to seemed to lack imagination.
I think Peter's work in progressing the badge for a key stage in any PhD is significant. Ultimately though, its the institutions who will benefit, from the imagination of outsiders. They will consider what we've done, and work out a way to do similar, disconnected from us, empowering only their institutional hold over it all. MOOCs are an example of that process happening now. Its also the one of the reasons I left WikiEducator and the developments around OERU.
Leigh Blackall
Very good suggestions Joelle.
My intention is to copy what Peter has done, into Wikiversity. Just as a backup. I'll adapt your recommendations in that. If anyone beats me to that, great!
Joelle.Vandermensbrugghe
Thanks for these links – interesting . So much seems to be happening now it is dazzling and hard to keep up with. I had a quick look, but will look a bit longer
Getting credentials – if you refer to a degree - at the moment only accredited training organisations can do this and they operate at a national level (even though more and more agreement are made cross countries). Australian education is based on the Australian Qualification Framework (see http://www.aqf.edu.au/ ) it is an interesting document as we may also use it to ensure the open PhD follows the principles it spells out. But open PhD is not an accredited training organisation and as such not able to provide formal degrees.
If however the badges were recognised by universities and that learning would be recognised, a student could work independently at first and then move on to a university and finish a PhD in a shorter timespan. But they would still need to go through a recognised university to get the formal degree. At the moment most Australian universities require you to be enrolled for a minimum of two years.
Recognition of badges will require to prove that they effectively testify of preparedness for a research degree, developed research skills………….and yes a few big names would help provide extra credentials. Isn’t this how Coursera became so famous
Support is hard to find largely because the academic world operates on a commercial model and have to show outputs. Most academics have little extra time to support people who they do not have to support but may do so if there was a project that was directly in their area of interest. In this sense I think it may be best to seek and approach people with expertise in specific areas and ask them for specific support and then use educational platforms for further discussion….
Joelle
Leigh Blackall
and it just so happens, the Wikipedia article for AQF is nice and easy to understand (compared to the official AQF site anyway). The suggestion to base our peer review models on some national or even transnational standard is a good one.
Peter Rawsthorne
Totally appreciate your input.
I will alter the P2Pu challenge to reflect some of what you have written here. I particularly like including a description of what is known within the domain... so it makes it really clear what your PhD work will add to the domain.
I get your point about having already identified methodologies... I am curious, is this standard practice when applying for PhD candidacy? I would think a part of the PhD is to develop beyond a masters level understanding of research methodology, so wouldn't identify methodology be a part of the early stages of a PhD?
I also get what you are saying about having a separate task for identifying methodology. I will make appropriate changes to the challenges...
Again. Thank-you so much for considering everything I put together... and providing your feedback!!!!
Peter
Joelle.Vandermensbrugghe
Peter,
Yes I suppose you are right identifying the appropriate methodology would be something you’d do in the PhD. But if candidates are expected to indicate their contribution, it would also mean that they would have a good understanding of what a contribution could be and what is feasible and what is not feasible.
II wonder if adding something referring to an understanding of methodologies and techniques and how they can be applied in the field of research would be useful. In practice someone may for example have great statistical skill but the project they think about may benefit from qualitative research – they would only know that if they try to have a look at methodologies, assumptions underlying these and how and when.
One more thing – we used to have ‘learning plans’ – students reacted against the vocabulary. Learning is so ‘undergraduate’ – a skills development plan may be better
Joelle
From: open-and-ne...@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-and-ne...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Peter Rawsthorne
Sent: Tuesday, 8 January 2013 4:07 PM
To: open-and-ne...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: ONPhD Candidacy Challenge on P2Pu
Joelle,
Peter Rawsthorne
I greatly appreciate everyone's input on this. Thank-you!
IMHO,
the conversation is starting to get drawn into the traditional idea of a
PhD. I really prefer the idea of an OnPhD being adding to the domain of
human knowledge for a particular subject and leave it at that. And
having peers / network assess completion. The points made by Yves and
Joelle regarding engagement of existing academics / supervisors is kinda
what i am trying to get away from. I recently read an article (written
by and academic, I didn't take the reference) who specialized in
informal learning and he said how he was hesitant to study the informal
to understand how it worked cause that could cause it to become
formalized... I really see the OnPhD as an informal endeavour not to be
restrained by traditional ideas of the PhD, yet still adding to the
domain of human knowledge. This ties into my ideas around it being a
NoPhD (Network and open, rather than Open and networked). I recently
gave a two week online seminar on digital badges and used this graphic
to indicate the amount of people engaged in tertiary / HE. And how their is a much greater population not being served by traditional approaches and the work we need to do is to provide approaches for this group, rather than the smaller population already being served. And the traditional PhD group would be even further down in the bottom right of this graph as a part of the global population. I know I just simplified something very complex, but I think I made my point.
On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:21:38 PM UTC-8, Peter Rawsthorne wrote:
Peter Rawsthorne
So given my position... what ingredients do we require to bake a NoPhD?
Many thanks for the precious time you spent reading and considering this....
Peter
Leigh Blackall
Pete, we shouldn't be too hastey in separating away from formal, established, traditional, or institutional ways of developing and recognising each others knowledge.. if only because we are using the name PhD in our terminology.. I really appreciate your willingness to think and act radically, and it may be I'm getting too conservative, but I think if we can retain connection, without compromising the values, methods and principles we are drawing on, we stand to befit from attracting formally enrolled PhD candidates into our practice, but hopefully connect non formals into a structure that is beneficial and not stifling, administrivial or dogmatic. I trust there is such structural value in the traditional PhD programs, and so were mimicimg it in many ways.
But I hear your concerns at being drawn too closely to the formal. An obvious risk in that is that people will see ONPhD as a short path to PhD, when we want it to be a better path. If people see it as a short path, we'll be burdened with people who after being rejected formally, try to use the social capital of ONPhD to re-enter the formal, out tread the same path exactly. We need to be different enough to deter such literal and unimaginative practice.
Peter Rawsthorne
In the end I certainly hope the OnPhD does not end up being seen as an easy alternative to the traditional PhD. And it is the work that we do that will set that bar...
I'll make my updates to the P2Pu site. I'm also close to completing the first task and I have begun to think about how I am going to define my supervisory group and what I want from a peer group' Then start soliciting for participants... all good.
Be Well...